Arbiter rules against town on sergeant snub

There are 12 comments on the
Nashoba Publishing
story from Jun 18, 2010, titled Arbiter rules against town on sergeant snub.
In it, Nashoba Publishing reports that:

Harvard Police Chief Edward Denmark's decision to promote one of his patrolmen to sergeant, over another similarly qualified sergeant, was based on flawed reasoning and a biased review panel, according to an arbiter's decision made against the police department on March 8. In 2008, Patrolman William Castro was passed over for promotion to the rank ...

...I don't get it. This story says the decision unfair yet by the scoring and ratings listed for multiple reviews and tests all scores were higher then the other. The only thing that plays a part in the difference is time / seniority. Of course when there's an evaluation for a position between 2 people, the one who didn't get it wont be happy...

...I don't get it. This story says the decision unfair yet by the scoring and ratings listed for multiple reviews and tests all scores were higher then the other. The only thing that plays a part in the difference is time / seniority. Of course when there's an evaluation for a position between 2 people, the one who didn't get it wont be happy...

james - if you put a score in there from Coates that was more in keeping with how the other panelists ranked Castro, Babu wouldn't have got the job. It isn't enough to say simply that Castro lost by 1/10 of a point - it's how the scoring was derived.

Coates scoring was so biased against Castro that it should have been disregarded (for Castro and Babu, perhaps) after the panel's individual scores were handed in - Coates score for Castro was so askew, it was obvious to the eye the arbitrator seems to say.

Even if it's a whisker apart, do you disregard 20 added years of police work, the acting chief role Castro fulfilled and his law degree? Factor back in the known ill will between Castro and Coates... the process was wrong.

"james - if you put a score in there from Coates that was more in keeping with how the other panelists ranked Castro, Babu wouldn't have got the job. It isn't enough to say simply that Castro lost by 1/10 of a point - it's how the scoring was derived.

Coates scoring was so biased against Castro that it should have been disregarded (for Castro and Babu, perhaps) after the panel's individual scores were handed in - Coates score for Castro was so askew, it was obvious to the eye the arbitrator seems to say.

Even if it's a whisker apart, do you disregard 20 added years of police work, the acting chief role Castro fulfilled and his law degree? Factor back in the known ill will between Castro and Coates... the process was wrong"

"james - if you put a score in there from Coates that was more in keeping with how the other panelists ranked Castro, Babu wouldn't have got the job. It isn't enough to say simply that Castro lost by 1/10 of a point - it's how the scoring was derived.Coates scoring was so biased against Castro that it should have been disregarded (for Castro and Babu, perhaps) after the panel's individual scores were handed in - Coates score for Castro was so askew, it was obvious to the eye the arbitrator seems to say.Even if it's a whisker apart, do you disregard 20 added years of police work, the acting chief role Castro fulfilled and his law degree? Factor back in the known ill will between Castro and Coates... the process was wrong"It sounds like Castro wrote this. The right man won

To "hI jAMES" - Nope. Castro didn't write this. It's not a personality pagent. It's not the likeablity of one over the other, which is what you seem to imply with ;;the right man won;;

Babu isn't wrong for the job. It shouldn't be Babu against Castro. The process followed was wrong.

Something's really under the department's skin about Castro -- what gives?

It's not a popularity contest ---it's about earning a job, time served and education attained. It's not all about scoring when it's swayed by one with a grudge - to insist otherwise is just more flawed logic and deflection of blame.

I hope Harvard does the right thing for Castro and not at the expense of Babu. Step up and pay.

Here is the real issue. A department head should be able to select the right person for the job, providing that person is qualified. This is the way the world, you rise & fall by your own choices, skills and talents. The previous commenter mentioned "earning the job" It looks like Castro did not.

The fact that he had to go to arbitration, should tell us all that Castro was not the right guy. When I have not received what I thought I should, I look to see where I have failed, which is what Bill should do.

This Globe article seems appropriate to mention here. Just because a boss says so isn't always the best approach. May not be applicable to this chief as I don't work there. But this made me laugh.

It’s true, your boss is a psychopathSurprising insights from the social sciencesBy Kevin Lewis June 20, 2010

Watching the news some days, you’d think a lot of companies were run by psychopaths. And, according to a recent study, some might well be. One of the authors of the study was hired by companies to evaluate managers — mostly middle-aged, college-educated, white males — for a management development program. It turns out that these managers scored higher on measures of psychopathy than the overall population, and some who had very high scores were candidates for, or held, senior positions. In general, managers with higher scores were seen as better communicators, better strategic thinkers, and more creative. However, they were also seen as having poor management style, not being team players, and delivering poor performance. But, apparently, this didn’t prevent some of them from being seen as having leadership potential. The authors conclude that “the very skills that make the psychopath so unpleasant (and sometimes abusive) in society can facilitate a career in business even in the face of negative performance ratings.”

Ever experience one of those kinds of bosses? Gee I hope you're not one...

Dear Tim and James: Perhaps you need to stop blaming the victim and place the blame on the police chief who made a farce of the selection process. The arbiter ruled that significant errors were made to skew the award. Seems the chief should be reprimanded or perhaps encouraged to seek employment elsewhere. It would be so refreshing to have him state that he made errors and would endeavor to learn from the ruling. But no, like Supt. Jefferson, he appears too arrogant to admit a mistake. Throw both bums out.

This whole article seems one sided favoring Castro's Position. Maybe because the writer of the article and Castro are both attorneys and friends. Chief Denmark is a highly educated and intelligent man with integrity and chose the right person for this job, the person that can serve the community the best. Promotions are complex animals and are based on different characteristics, but clearly the article stresses only how smart and educated Castro is, even though a lot of things are not true in the article.[quote/]"Even if it's a whisker apart, do you disregard 20 added years of police work, the acting chief role Castro fulfilled and his law degree?"[/quote]Acting Chief for less than a year when he was removed from it. I thought it was 30 years, oh yeah that was not right either.

Dear Tim and James: Perhaps you need to stop blaming the victim and place the blame on the police chief who made a farce of the selection process. The arbiter ruled that significant errors were made to skew the award. Seems the chief should be reprimanded or perhaps encouraged to seek employment elsewhere. It would be so refreshing to have him state that he made errors and would endeavor to learn from the ruling. But no, like Supt. Jefferson, he appears too arrogant to admit a mistake. Throw both bums out.

How is it a "Fault". Denmark elected someone fully qualified to the position who has excelled. This is just a case of the person who didn't get it throwing a temper tantrum.

What the article fails to mention is that the scores submitted by Coates were for his own use only and not used in any mathematical calculation. The scores were developed by the entire panel and all had to agree on a final score. The article, and the arbiter's decision, were based on misinformation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.